I'd say they're talking about the wide range of results that can come about from taking such a small sample size (one week). I guess that means we're talking about real-life events, but I wouldn't say it impacts roto the same way as H2H. The thing with H2H is not all weeks are created equal. Each of the playoff weeks are probably worth 5-10 times any of the preliminary weeks in terms of how it affects your chances of winning (just a guess of course, but it seems fairly reasonable to me). So, bad weeks affect you different amounts, depending on when you have them. Through a season, you'll always have your bad weeks and your good weeks, but when you have either one is pretty much pure chance.

mamorris wrote:I'd say they're talking about the wide range of results that can come about from taking such a small sample size (one week). I guess that means we're talking about real-life events, but I wouldn't say it impacts roto the same way as H2H. The thing with H2H is not all weeks are created equal. Each of the playoff weeks are probably worth 5-10 times any of the preliminary weeks in terms of how it affects your chances of winning (just a guess of course, but it seems fairly reasonable to me). So, bad weeks affect you different amounts, depending on when you have them. Through a season, you'll always have your bad weeks and your good weeks, but when you have either one is pretty much pure chance.

But is it not possible for you to have a bad week the same as your opponent? That's why I say that real-life events affect H2H equally, and scheduling is the only difference.

For instance, what if you have a good week against someone having a great week? Pure scheduling luck.

Want an easy icon?http://www.fantasybaseballcafe.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=133All you have to do is beat a few guys at picking Sunday's winners.[/url]

StlSluggers

Hall of Fame Hero

Posts: 14414

(Past Year: -302)

Joined: 24 May 2004

Home Cafe: Baseball

Location: Parking in the gov't bldg @ 7th and Pine. It's only $3.00 on game day!

BTW, can anyone qualify the term "luck" for me with respect to how it applies to H2H? As I see it, there are two forms of luck in H2H - real-life events (player sitting, injury, slump) and scheduling luck. The former impacts roto just as much as it affects H2H, but the latter is unique to the format. However, unlike the former, the latter can be completely quantified and measured.

So, when you guys are complaining about "luck," which form is it?

For me, it takes numerous forms. Bad luck in that Larussa decided to rest Pujols when he carried me all year. Bad luck when I lost my matchup but would have won every other 1 (based on my totals). Bad luck when my opponent gets 2 starts from Pedro, Carpenter, and Johnson while my Santana, Peavy, and Beckett only pitch once each that week. The list goes on but there is 1 common theme.......There is quite a bit more luck involved with H2H over roto.

StlSluggers wrote:BTW, can anyone qualify the term "luck" for me with respect to how it applies to H2H? As I see it, there are two forms of luck in H2H - real-life events (player sitting, injury, slump) and scheduling luck. The former impacts roto just as much as it affects H2H,

That is untrue because you forget to account for the 5 months of stats accumulated before Sept. In H2H playoffs, those 5 months get erased and all that matters is the current matchup no matter how dominant your team was in the previous 5 months. Your lead couldn't be all that strong if just one bad week could make you lose in Roto. And really, it doesn't even take a bad week to lose in H2H matchup -- it only takes one hot week from your opponent, and that's besides the fact that some of your stud players might get sat to be rested in real life.

but the latter is unique to the format. However, unlike the former, the latter can be completely quantified and measured.

A lot of good that does you though.

Anyway, while H2H is in some sense more like real life baseball due to the matchup format, it is far from being like baseball itself because of all the other things wrong w/ it. I seriously doubt you can come close at all unless you go w/ a good points system, instead of using roto-type stats, for H2H. Ideally, you probably need a points system that accurately *and* precisely simulates run production and prevention. You'd also need rules and limits that yield reasonably fair and equitable gameplay, including roughly equal amount of IPs used -- a good points system should probably eliminate any concerns about setting a minimum IP/G/AB rule although max IP/G is still needed.

To me, the easiest way to get there would be using something like Extrapolated Runs (XR) for offense and IP - R for pitching/defense (w/ maybe very small, justifiable bonuses/penalties for certain events). A points system like that would also reduce some of the impact of "luck" in the playoffs as there are less reliance on things that are prone to "luck", eg. no R's, no RBI's, no overvaluing of W's, etc.

As I've said before, I'd play H2H w/ a good points system, but probably not roto-type categories. Maybe also move the playoffs up a couple weeks to reduce the impact of Sept weirdness.

That is untrue because you forget to account for the 5 months of stats accumulated before Sept. In H2H playoffs, those 5 months get erased and all that matters is the current matchup no matter how dominant your team was in the previous 5 months. Your lead couldn't be all that strong if just one bad week could make you lose in Roto. And really, it doesn't even take a bad week to lose in H2H matchup -- it only takes one hot week from your opponent, and that's besides the fact that some of your stud players might get sat to be rested in real life.

Not to pick on you, Sultans, but you're the last poster (and the handiest). This argument is killing me. There's a special word for these things: Playoffs. The reason they have a different name is because they are distinct from the regular season. You can still have a regular season champion, with all the honors and glory that attend that. This argument that playoffs are bad because one bad week can negate a whole season...well, to me, it's silly. One has nothing to do with the other, unless you failed to set up payoffs, etc. to reward the regular season. If you were the regular season champion, you're still the regular season champion. Playoffs -- like in every sport, and every simulation of sport -- are something else. It's a different, special thing you do at the end of the regular season. Sure luck plays a bigger role in the playoffs, as it does in any short series. But the whole world does playoffs in almost every competitive situation, because we can intuitively see that there is some serious excitement in that short, somewhat unpredictable, series. Why is it a swell idea in virtually every other sporting context, but not in fantasy baseball?

If you want to be in a league that values excellence in the regular season more than the playoffs, then you structure your payoffs that way. For example, 80% to the regular season champion, 20% to the playoff champion. Whatever you want. Having playoffs in your league does not have to undermine your regular season at all. It's just another fun (seriously fun) thing you do at the completion of the regular season.

That is untrue because you forget to account for the 5 months of stats accumulated before Sept. In H2H playoffs, those 5 months get erased and all that matters is the current matchup no matter how dominant your team was in the previous 5 months. Your lead couldn't be all that strong if just one bad week could make you lose in Roto. And really, it doesn't even take a bad week to lose in H2H matchup -- it only takes one hot week from your opponent, and that's besides the fact that some of your stud players might get sat to be rested in real life.

Not to pick on you, Sultans, but you're the last poster (and the handiest).

No problem, except you quoted me out of context a bit there.

In that part of the post, I was only responding to the argument that those "luck" factors impact both Roto and H2H equally, which they clearly don't.

This argument is killing me. There's a special word for these things: Playoffs. The reason they have a different name is because they are distinct from the regular season. You can still have a regular season champion, with all the honors and glory that attend that.

This argument that playoffs are bad because one bad week can negate a whole season...well, to me, it's silly. One has nothing to do with the other, unless you failed to set up payoffs, etc. to reward the regular season. If you were the regular season champion, you're still the regular season champion.

That's fine in theory, but untrue in general practice, IMHO. Maybe it's true in your small circle of friends and aquaintances, but I doubt it's true for most others. Otherwise, there would be more people making the same argument you're making.

Now, I'm not saying there's anything wrong w/ what you're suggesting, but just that's not how things work out in practice. People don't generally want 2 champions. They want 1. In general, playoffs are for deciding that 1 champion, not for providing a completely separate champion.

If by "reward", you're talking about money prize or similar, yeah, that would help. But so much for bragging rights though if you win the regular season and lose the playoffs, assuming you don't get labeled for choking.

Playoffs -- like in every sport, and every simulation of sport -- are something else. It's a different, special thing you do at the end of the regular season.

Huh? What planet do you live on? Yes, *some* sports are organized to have some aspects of what you suggest, but AFAIK, none of them value a regular season "championship" higher than playoffs championship, if they value the regular season at all relative to the playoffs.

Sure luck plays a bigger role in the playoffs, as it does in any short series. But the whole world does playoffs in almost every competitive situation, because we can intuitively see that there is some serious excitement in that short, somewhat unpredictable, series. Why is it a swell idea in virtually every other sporting context, but not in fantasy baseball?

I (and some others) are not arguing that playoffs in general are bad just because luck plays a bigger role in general. Rather, I'm arguing that it plays way too big a role in fantasy baseball because there's even more luck than usual. In real life sports playoffs, you don't have a Pujols sitting on the bench to rest up for something that happens *after* the playoffs in addition to other normal kinds of luck. You don't have a Halladay or Duke being coddled for leg injuries just because the games don't really matter anymore. Instead, you have a Schilling wrapping up his broken ankle to go out there and get you that crucial win at crunch time, bloody sock and all. You have a Hershiser that goes out and pitch almost every other day throughout the '88 playoffs, his long term health be damned, and nailing that final victory despite an arm that's gone numb from all the wear.

Some would call some of those things luck too, but *those* things are exciting. Having Pujols or Halladay or Duke benched is *not* exciting at all.

If you want to be in a league that values excellence in the regular season more than the playoffs, then you structure your payoffs that way. For example, 80% to the regular season champion, 20% to the playoff champion. Whatever you want. Having playoffs in your league does not have to undermine your regular season at all. It's just another fun (seriously fun) thing you do at the completion of the regular season.

By payoffs, I assume you mean money then. If that's the case and if you generally only play money leagues, then I really have to wonder if you even *get* what some of us are arguing.

I don't play FBB for money. I play it for the challenge itself along w/ my love for baseball. If money is what matters, I'd be better off taking a side job instead. Note that I'm not suggesting that there should be no money involved, but just that that should not be the main point of the game in my not so humble opinion.

One final thing. As I hinted here and there, I'm not completely opposed to H2H, but I'd want something much better than what is typically seen in H2H leagues. Maybe you missed the 2nd half of my post that you quote from?

Sultans of Squat wrote:Anyway, while H2H is in some sense more like real life baseball due to the matchup format, it is far from being like baseball itself because of all the other things wrong w/ it. I seriously doubt you can come close at all unless you go w/ a good points system, instead of using roto-type stats, for H2H. Ideally, you probably need a points system that accurately *and* precisely simulates run production and prevention. You'd also need rules and limits that yield reasonably fair and equitable gameplay, including roughly equal amount of IPs used -- a good points system should probably eliminate any concerns about setting a minimum IP/G/AB rule although max IP/G is still needed.

To me, the easiest way to get there would be using something like Extrapolated Runs (XR) for offense and IP - R for pitching/defense (w/ maybe very small, justifiable bonuses/penalties for certain events). A points system like that would also reduce some of the impact of "luck" in the playoffs as there are less reliance on things that are prone to "luck", eg. no R's, no RBI's, no overvaluing of W's, etc.

As I've said before, I'd play H2H w/ a good points system, but probably not roto-type categories. Maybe also move the playoffs up a couple weeks to reduce the impact of Sept weirdness.

I would add that doubling the length of playoff matchups would help too (as suggested by some).

FWIW, I did actually suggest to my dynasty-like non-H2H points league the idea of splitting the league into 2 divisions to provide a "manual" version of a 2-week league championship series between the division winners. We use Yahoo, so the division split as well as the championship series would have to be handled separately w/out support from Yahoo's limited features. But I figured a simple single-series playoff is simple enough to track. Still, I received mixed feedback about it due to the heightened luck factor in Sept.

Fair enough. Not surprisingly, I disagree with you in a number of ways. And feel like I've been misinterpreted in even more. Damned English language!

Now, I'm not saying there's anything wrong w/ what you're suggesting, but just that's not how things work out in practice. People don't generally want 2 champions. They want 1. In general, playoffs are for deciding that 1 champion, not for providing a completely separate champion.

If you're talking players who are remotely sophisticated, they'll know the value of that regular season championship. They'll know that the best team generally comes out on top at the end of a long season. And they'll know that a loss in a short series doesn't change that. And that no fantasy owner yet has picked up a bat, so the idea of "choking" is kind of ridiculous.

Huh? What planet do you live on? Yes, *some* sports are organized to have some aspects of what you suggest, but AFAIK, none of them value a regular season "championship" higher than playoffs championship, if they value the regular season at all relative to the playoffs.

If that's true, I think it's an argument for playoffs, not against them. If the world in general agrees that the playoff winner is the more important one.

Rather, I'm arguing that it plays way too big a role in fantasy baseball because there's even more luck than usual. In real life sports playoffs, you don't have a Pujols sitting on the bench to rest up for something that happens *after* the playoffs in addition to other normal kinds of luck. You don't have a Halladay or Duke being coddled for leg injuries just because the games don't really matter anymore. Instead, you have a Schilling wrapping up his broken ankle to go out there and get you that crucial win at crunch time, bloody sock and all. You have a Hershiser that goes out and pitch almost every other day throughout the '88 playoffs, his long term health be damned, and nailing that final victory despite an arm that's gone numb from all the wear.

At least in H2H, these things aren't impacting what you view as the all-important regular season title. You could argue that the H2H regular season ends when it ought to. Before garbage time kicks in. In Roto, in those years when September actually matters, you've got this kind of crap helping to decide the season title.

By payoffs, I assume you mean money then. If that's the case and if you generally only play money leagues, then I really have to wonder if you even *get* what some of us are arguing.

It's not all that I care about, and I think if you've read many of my posts you'd see that. But it is one crucial part of the experience for most of us, and you can see that everyday in the responses in this forum. Money is a convenient measuring stick for the things that your league values. And it will certainly help reinforce those values. If 100% of your prize money goes to the regular season champ, and nothing to the playoff winner, I can guarantee you that's going to be where the "bragging" rights lie. And, by the way, if "bragging" is what you care about with this sport, I wonder if you get it.

I'm not jumping into the philosophical arguments; I've played both Roto and H2H, and enjoy both on their merits. Just have to take a slightly different approach to each.

That said, I reached the semifinals in my H2H league four straight years, including twice as the top seed and once as the No. 2 seed, without advancing to the finals. Thing is, it was never a case of a stud injury late in the year ... just having an off week and/or an opponent blowing up beyond all expectation (usually both ).
The great irony is I finally snapped that string last week by whaling on my opponent despite the loss of Halladay and ARam. Keep at it; your time will come.

Luck does impact both equally. The people who believe otherwise are just focusing on the size of the incremental impact. If one set of data has a low standard deviation and another has a high, it does not mean that they must have different means.

What I mean is that the impact of luck in H2H (which ever kind) is more volatile, but it evens out in the long-term so that it resembles roto. Of course, I'm referring to regular-season stats here. In a playoff format, they are not comparable.

Want an easy icon?http://www.fantasybaseballcafe.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=133All you have to do is beat a few guys at picking Sunday's winners.[/url]

StlSluggers

Hall of Fame Hero

Posts: 14414

(Past Year: -302)

Joined: 24 May 2004

Home Cafe: Baseball

Location: Parking in the gov't bldg @ 7th and Pine. It's only $3.00 on game day!

How many times have the Braves had the best record in baseball and not won the World Series? You think they should say they hate the format that baseball uses because they had the best record in baseball during the regular season so many years but didn't win the World Series because they had a "bad week"? The expression "On paper they have a better team" comes to mind. Another is " Thats why they play the games." H2h is most like real baseball because on paper a team might look like the champions(Yankees 05) but get beat down by a much lesser team( TampaBay 05) Thats why H2h is so much more fun to me.